address, the character and modes of illustration-all, in a word, except barely idiomatic or provincial peculiarities. Where, for instance, do we find the principle of rhetorical repetition or variation recognised and sanctioned, and yet so guarded from abuse as in the sacred Scriptures? insomuch that two and three, and five, and even ten successive expressions of the same idea are accounted no violation of correct taste or rhetorical effect. Or where, as in this divine volume, do we learn the resistless power of characteristic or personal illustrations and appeals, by which the sacred orator constitutes his hearer at once the honest witness and the impartial judge in his own cause? Or where such striking developments of that figure in rhetoric which characterises causes by their effects, as, for example, this exquisite couplet of the Prophet Joel: "The land is as the garden of Eden before them, Equally powerful in practice, though more complex in principle, is that which may be called the scriptural style of heraldry or proclamation, by which anticipations of threatened conquest and judgment are heightened by an extended enumeration of those resources for defence or refuge, of which the guilty are wont to boast: Thus, in Isa. ii. 12-17. "For the day of the Lord of Hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and haughty. And upon every one that is lifted up, And he shall be brought low, And upon all the cedars of Lebanon that are high and lifted up, And upon all the oaks of Bashan, And upon all the high mountains, And upon all the hills that are lifted up, And upon every high tower, And upon every fenced wall, And upon all the ships of Tarshish, And upon all pleasant pictures, And the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, And the haughtiness of men shall be made low, And the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day." It is obvious that we plead for no exemption from salutary rules, or diligent and systematic study in this matter. The original languages, and the exhaustless variety in the sentiment and style of the sacred Scriptures, will imperatively demand both. We deprecate as the fittest work and the veriest curse of Satan, that lawless fury of the untaught tongue, which would set the world on fire of hell, and call it the flame of sacred eloquence. The unruled, reckless storm, which sweeps the main, is unlike the "doctrine Which drops as the rain, And distils as the dew." And equally unlike the "whirlwind and the storm" in which Jehovah hath his way. ART. II.-REVIEW. Lectures on Infant Baptism, by Leonard Woods, D. D. Abbot Professor of Christian Theology in the Theological Seminary at Andover. Published and for sale by Mark Newman. Hogg and Gould, printers, pp. 222. 1829. 2. Essays on Christian Baptism, by J. S. C. F. Frey, Pastor of the Baptist church in Newark, N. J. Boston, published by Lincoln and Edwards, 59 Washington street, pp. 122. 1829. 3. Infant Baptism a Scriptural ordinance; and Baptism by sprinkling lawful. By William Hamilton, A. M. Pastor of the 1st Presb. church, Newark, N. J. Newark, printed by William Tuttle, 1831. THE subjects and mode of Christian Baptism have long been matters of earnest, and not unfrequently, angry controversy; and from all appearances, the disciples of Christ will continue to be divided by their discordant views on this external rite. In other cases, Christians may differ in regard to matters of much more vital importance, and yet not break the sacred bonds of church-fellowship; but in this, although they may be perfectly agreed on every other point, they feel that they must separate from one another: for as baptism is the outward sign of Christianity, the badge of discipleship, and the door of entrance into the visible church, if one portion of Christians view another as unbaptized, they think they cannot recognise them as regular members of the visible church, while they remain in this state; however sincerely they may esteem them as pious and orthodox, in all other respects. On this point, however, Baptists are divided among themselves; for while the majority adhere to the principle, that no unbaptised person can with propriety be admitted to the Lord's table, there is a respectable section of that denomination in England, and a few in this country, who maintain, that where there exists satisfactory evidence of piety, no one should be excluded from the communion of the church for want of regular baptism, when there are insuperable obstacles in the way of his receiving that ordinance, arising from his full persuasion. that he has already submitted to it, agreeably to Christ's appointment. This question has been ably discussed, beyond the Atlantic, by men of the first abilities, in the Baptist denomination; and it must be confessed, that the subject is hedged in with difficulties. But we adopt the broad principle, that no barrier should be permitted to separate those who appear to be the disciples of Christ; and that all terms of communion which would exclude permanently, any one whom we cannot but acknowledge as a brother in Christ, are erroneous, inconsistent with the unity of the church, and ought to be relinquished. Whatever irregularity may seem to be connected with the practice of admitting to communion in the eucharist, those, who in our opinion, have not been lawfully baptised, is greatly overbalanced by the revolting principle, that we are bound to reject from our fellowship those whom we cannot but admit, that Christ, the head of the church, receives, and who, with no other baptism than that which they have, will be admitted into the blessed society of heaven. Our sentiments, therefore, harmonise with those Baptist churches who admit to their communion all real Christians; although, in their opinion, they may be unbaptised. The advocates of close communion, however, charge us with inconsistency, in censuring them for excluding Pedobaptists from the Lord's supper; and are in the habit of appealing to us, whether we would admit a person whom we knew to be unbaptised. Now we are prepared to say, that if any whom we esteem to be the real disciples of Christ, should be placed in precisely similar circumstances, we would not hesitate to receive them to the communion of the Lord's supper. In common, we acknowledge, that the regular order of Christian duties is, first to be baptised, and that we should insist upon this, if there were no VOL. III. No. IV. -3 M insuperable obstacle in the way: but if a Quaker, who appeared to be a genuine Christian, should say to us, that he was persuaded that it was his duty to attend on the Lord's supper, but that he could not see his way clear to submit to water-baptism, upon our principles, we would receive him as a weak brother, not to doubtful disputations, but in the arms of charity; for it never can be made appear, that baptism is, in the nature of things, necessary to a cordial remembrance of the death of Christ at the Lord's supper. And if a Christian, through ignorance or prejudice, is so situated that he cannot perform one duty, shall we prevent him from observing another on which he wishes to attend? It is surely sacrificing the substance to form, and edification to a mere point of order, to insist rigourously on the precedence of baptism in such cases; and especially, as the fact is, that the eucharist was celebrated before Christian baptism was instituted. But as this is contested ground, we shall dismiss this subject, and proceed to the work which we have undertaken. The lectures of Dr. Woods, which stand at the head of this article, were originally a part of his regular course of instruction to his pupils; it may be expected, therefore, that the arguments are rather adapted to the capacity of the educated and improved part of society, than to the common people. This, we think, is one of the principal objections to this treatise. It is learned, discriminating, and candid; but it is not exactly suited to a large class of readers who need instruction, and are anxious to obtain satisfaction, on this point. In two respects, however, Dr. Woods has avoided the faults into which a large majority of Pedobaptist writers have fallen: the one is, the use of arguments founded on principles which are universally denied by Anti-pedobaptists; and the other is, that hateful spirit of acrimony which has been so freely indulged by most writers on this subject. When we express this censure of the spirit of writers with whom we agree in opinion, we do not mean to excuse those on the other side. Indeed, we can scarcely recollect any point on which there has been exhibited a greater defect of candour, and a more ill-judged ridicule, than by the opposers of infant baptism. We rejoice, therefore, that an example of moderation and kindness is now given; and cannot but hope, that as the writer occupies so high and conspicuous a station, it will be followed generally, by all who may think it proper to discuss the subject; on whichever side they choose to take their stand. In regard to the second article prefixed to this paper, we have little to remark. There is nothing peculiarly offensive in the style and spirit of the writer; unless we should except a more than common degree of egotism. But, really, Mr. Frey should have allowed himself more time to prepare on a subject which involves much ecclesiastical and biblical learning; and he might have furnished, if not stronger arguments, yet such as were more original, and more pertinent; for upon a careful examination of his work, we find scarcely any thing which is not extracted from the work of the Rev. Abraham Booth. We are much inclined to respect the sound evangelical principles, and solid learning of Mr. Booth; but we have ever been of opinion, that his parade of citations from eminent Pedobaptist authors was a very useless labour. Those very authors, notwithstanding they are made to speak against the cause which they maintained, were all firm believers in the doctrine of infant baptism, and in the validity of the rite, performed otherwise than by immersion. It can answer little purpose, therefore, to gather up declarations which may be found in their writings, to establish a point which none of them believed. It is evident that Mr. Frey knows very little of the learned authors whom he cites; and surely such an array of testimonies cannot be appreciated by the great mass of the people on whom he wishes his book to produce an effect. Perhaps, if our author had perused and impartially weighed, Dr. Edward Williams' able answer to Booth, he would not have laid so much stress on all the arguments which he employs. If we have any judgment in matters of this sort, the answer of Dr. Williams, on the subject of positive institutions, is completely satisfactory; and if any reader should wish to see an able dissussion of this point, we would refer him with confidence to the first part of the first volume of Williams' Reply to Booth. The fallacy in the arguments of Booth and other Anti-pedobaptist writers on this point is, the application of a principle which is true as it relates to the being and essential parts of a positive rite, to all the circumstances which attend its administration. The very definition of positive duties shows, that they owe their existence, and consequently their obligation, to an express command. For example, neither circumcision, nor the passover, would have |